U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Okhotnikov

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) VLADIMIR OKHOTNIKOV, ) JANE DOE a/k/a LOLA FERRARI, ) MIKAIL SERGEEV, ) SERGEY MASLAKOV, ) Case No. 22 C 3978 SAMUEL D. ELLIS, ) MARK F. HAMLIN, ) Judge Jorge L. Alonso SARAH L. THEISSEN, ) CARLOS L. MARTINEZ, ) RONALD R. DEERING, ) CHERI BETH BOWEN, and ) ALISHA R. SHEPPERD, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________ )

PLAINTIFF’S AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT AS TO DEFENDANTS SAMUEL D. ELLIS AND SARAH L. THEISSEN Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission respectfully moves the Court for entry of the following proposed judgments by consent: (i) Final Judgment as to Defendant Samuel D.

Ellis (“Ellis”); and (ii) Partial Judgment as to Defendant Sarah L. Theissen (“Theissen”).

In support of this motion, the SEC shows the Court as follows: 1. The SEC filed its Complaint in this matter on August 1, 2022 (Dkt# 1) alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws – specifically, Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), U.S.C. § 77e; Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a); and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

2. Ellis has agreed to settle all of the SEC’s claims. Attached as Exhibit 1 is Ellis’ signed consent to the proposed final judgment. Accordingly, upon entry of the final judgment, the case against Ellis will be resolved in full.

3. Theissen has agreed to a partial settlement of the SEC’s claims. Attached as Exhibit 2 is her signed consent to the proposed partial judgment. This judgment obviates the need to litigate substantive liability on the part of Theissen, and it permanently enjoins her from violating the federal securities laws at issue in the complaint as well as from engaging in certain other activity. The proposed judgment further provides that monetary relief sought by the SEC – in the form of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a civil penalty – shall be determined by the Court at a later date on the SEC’s motion. We anticipate moving for such monetary relief after the claims against the remaining Defendants are resolved. District courts routinely have entered judgments based on this type of “bifurcated” settlement in SEC enforcement actions, and have adopted the procedures described in the attached consents for the monetary relief portion of the proceedings. See, e.g., SEC v. Daubenspeck, 469 F. Supp. 3d 859, 860 (N.D. Ill. 2020); SEC v. Zenergy Int’l, Inc., No. 13-5511, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127630, at *2-4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2016); SEC v. Integrity Fin. AZ, LLC, No. 10-782, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6758, at *3-4 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2012).

4. In the attached consents, both Ellis and Theissen have agreed the SEC “may present the [proposed judgment] to the Court for signature and entry without further notice.” (See Ex. 1-2, at ¶ 16.) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there is no just reason to delay entry of the proposed judgments, and the SEC submits entry of these judgments will conserve judicial resources and streamline the issues in this litigation. In addition, there is little risk of piecemeal appeals as both Ellis and Theissen have waived their right to appeal from the judgment. (See Ex. 1-2, at ¶ 7.)

5. This case will proceed in full as to the remaining Defendants – Vladimir Okhotnikov; Jane Doe a/k/a Lola Ferrari; Mikail Sergeev; Sergey Maslakov; Mark F. Hamlin; Carlos L. Martinez; Ronald R. Deering; Cheri Beth Bowen; and Alisha R. Shepperd – and is not affected by entry of the proposed judgments.

6. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices, the proposed judgments in Word format are being emailed separately to Chambers.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons cited above, the SEC respectfully requests the Court grant this motion and enter the proposed judgments.

DATED: August 2, 2022 Respectfully submitted, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION By: /s/ Timothy S. Leiman Timothy S. Leiman ([email protected]) (IL #6270153) Chicago Regional Office W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 353-5213 Patrick R. Costello ([email protected]) (FL #75034) Christopher J. Carney ([email protected]) (DC #472294) Washington, DC Office F Street NE Washington, DC 20549-5949 Telephone: (202) 551-3982 Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 2, 2022, I caused to be served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT AS TO DEFENDANTS SAMUEL D. ELLIS AND SARAH L. THEISSEN on Defendants at the addresses and by the means set forth on the attached Service List.

/s/ Timothy S. Leiman Timothy S. Leiman Service List Samuel D. Ellis, pro se By electronic mail 3726 West Broadway Louisville, KY 40211 [email protected] Mark F. Hamlin By electronic mail c/o Ryan Willis, Christian Dysart, James Kurosad Dysart Willis Hillsborough Street, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Sarah L. Theissen By electronic mail c/o Gregg N. Sofer and Patrick Coffey Husch Blackwell LLP Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701-4093 [email protected] [email protected] Carlos L. Martinez By electronic mail c/o Matthew Wilson and David Benowitz Price Benowitz LLP 7th St NW, #100 Washington, DC 20004 [email protected] [email protected] Ronald R. Deering By electronic mail c/o Peter King and Cindy Innocent Guerra King P.A.

The Towers at Westshore 1408 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 1010 Tampa, FL 33607 [email protected] [email protected] Cheri Beth Bowen, pro se By US mail Leesburg Rd. Pelahatchie, MS 39145-3142 Alisha R. Shepperd By electronic mail c/o Matthew Mueller Fogarty Mueller Harris, PLLC E Madison St., Suite 202 Tampa, FL 33602-4703 [email protected]